Open Transparent Communication about Animals in Laboratories: Dialog for Multiple Voices and Multiple Audiences

Is UK Animal Research Governance Facing a 'New Normal'? Considering the Risks and Benefits of 'Going Online'

Since a return to in-office working after the extensive disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated challenges, many conversations are still being had with regard to what the 'new normal' might look like in professional spaces and networks, and what lessons can be learnt from long periods of remote working. The regulation of animal research practice in the UK is no exception here and, like many other systems, it has been transformed by the increasingly recognised value of streamlining procedures through the use of virtual online spaces. In early October 2022, the author attended an AWERB-UK meeting in Birmingham (convened by the RSPCA, LAVA, LASA and IAT), which focused on the induction, training and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) opportunities for Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) members. This comment article reflects on this meeting and raises some interesting questions surrounding animal research governance in an evolving online era, specifically the associated ethical and welfare dimensions.

Perceptions of laboratory animal veterinarians regarding institutional transparency

Institutions using animals for research typically have a veterinarian who is responsible for the veterinary care programme and compliance with regulatory obligations. These veterinarians operate at the interface between the institution's animal research programme and senior management. Veterinarians have strong public trust and are well positioned to share information about animals used for scientific purposes, but their perspectives on sharing information with the public are not well documented and their perceptions of transparency may influence how institutional policies are developed and applied. The objective of our study was to analyse the perceptions of institutional transparency among laboratory animal veterinarians working at different universities. Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were used to describe perceptions of 16 attending veterinarians relating to animal research transparency. Three themes were drawn from the interviews: (i) reflections on transparency; (ii) reflections on culture; and (iii) reflections on self. Veterinarians reflected on their personal priorities regarding transparency and when combined with barriers to change within the institutions, sometimes resulted in reported inaction. For example, sometimes veterinarians chose not to pursue available opportunities for change at seemingly willing universities, while others had their initiatives for change blocked by more senior administrators. The sharing of information regarding the animals used for scientific purposes varied in how it was conceptualised by attending veterinarians: (i) true transparency; communication of information for the sake of openness; (ii) strategic transparency; attempt to educate people about animal research because then they will support it; (iii) agenda-driven transparency; selective release of positive stories to direct public opinion; and (iv) fearful non-transparency; not communicating any information for fear of negative opposition to animal research. Transparency was not perceived as an institutional priority by many of the veterinarians and a cohesive action plan to increase transparency that involves multiple universities was identified as a promising avenue to overcome existing barriers.

Clarifying the Ethics and Oversight of Chimeric Research

This article is the lead piece in a special report that presents the results of a bioethical investigation into chimeric research, which involves the insertion of human cells into nonhuman animals and nonhuman animal embryos, including into their brains. Rapid scientific developments in this field may advance knowledge and could lead to new therapies for humans. They also reveal the conceptual, ethical, and procedural limitations of existing ethics guidance for human-nonhuman chimeric research. Led by bioethics researchers working closely with an interdisciplinary work group, the investigation focused on generating conceptual clarity and identifying improvements to governance approaches, with the goal of helping scholars, funders, scientists, institutional leaders, and oversight bodies (embryonic stem cell research oversight [ESCRO] committees and institutional animal care and use committees [IACUCs]) deliver principled and trustworthy oversight of this area of science. The article, which focuses on human-nonhuman animal chimeric research that is stem cell based, identifies key ethical issues in and offers ten recommendations regarding the ethics and oversight of this research. Turning from bioethics' previous focus on human-centered questions about the ethics of "humanization" and this research's potential impact on concepts like human dignity, this article emphasizes the importance of nonhuman animal welfare concerns in chimeric research and argues for less-siloed governance and oversight and more-comprehensive public communication.

A companion to the preclinical common data elements for rodent models of pediatric acquired epilepsy: A report of the TASK3-WG1B, Pediatric and Genetic Models Working Group of the ILAE/AES Joint Translational Task Force

Epilepsy syndromes during the early years of life may be attributed to an acquired insult, such as hypoxic-ischemic injury, infection, status epilepticus, or brain trauma. These conditions are frequently modeled in experimental rodents to delineate mechanisms of epileptogenesis and investigate novel therapeutic strategies. However, heterogeneity and subsequent lack of reproducibility of such models across laboratories is an ongoing challenge to maintain scientific rigor and knowledge advancement. To address this, as part of the TASK3-WG1B Working Group of the International League Against Epilepsy/American Epilepsy Society Joint Translational Task Force, we have developed a series of case report forms (CRFs) to describe common data elements for pediatric acquired epilepsy models in rodents. The "Rodent Models of Pediatric Acquired Epilepsy" Core CRF was designed to capture cohort-general information; while two Specific CRFs encompass physical induction models and chemical induction models, respectively. This companion manuscript describes the key elements of these models and why they are important to be considered and reported consistently. Together, these CRFs provide investigators with the tools to systematically record critical information regarding their chosen model of acquired epilepsy during early life, for improved standardization and transparency across laboratories. These outcomes will support the ultimate goal of such research; that is, to understand the childhood onset-specific biology of epileptogenesis after acquired insults, and translate this knowledge into therapeutics to improve pediatric patient outcomes and minimize the lifetime burden of epilepsy.

Culture of care in animal research - Expanding the 3Rs to include people

Research on animals is essential for science and medical progress. While it is still necessary to conduct this research, it is essential to apply the highest standards in animal welfare, including animal husbandry and care. Furthermore, it is important to recognize the special relationship between research animals and the people who care for them. Caring for research animals can be extremely fulfilling and meaningful, but it also comes with challenges, particularly when caring for animals experiencing pain or distress. These challenges can lead to work-related mental stress. To get more insight into the challenges of working in animal research, we organized a panel discussion at the GV-SOLAS (German Society for Laboratory Animal Science) and IGTP (Interest Group Animal Caretakers) conference 2021 about work wellbeing. This discussion was the first of its kind in Germany. The active panel contributions included the view of an ethical philosopher, a scientist, a lecturer for laboratory animal science, an animal facility manager and an animal caretaker. They gave insights from their perspective into key factors that can affect human wellbeing in animal research. Keys ideas included stigmatization of work, tension between research aims and animal wellbeing, and the importance of supportive culture to overcome work-related strains, as well as lack of education and supportive environments to cope with emotional stress in the workplace. Overall, the discussion has shown that we must also promote human wellbeing when promoting culture of care in animal research, because there is strong relationship between culture of care and individual performance.

Critiquing imaginaries of 'the public' in UK dialogue around animal research: Insights from the Mass Observation Project

With an established history of controversy in the UK, the use of animals in science continues to generate significant socio-ethical discussion. Here, the figure of 'the public' plays a key role. However, dominant imaginaries of 'the public' have significant methodological and ethical problems. Examining these, this paper critiques three ways in which 'the public' is currently constructed in relation to animal research; namely as un- or mis-informed; homogenous; and holding fixed and extractable views. In considering an alternative to such imaginaries, we turn to the Mass Observation Project (MOP), a national life-writing project in the UK. In its efforts to generate writing which is typically reflexive, its recognition of the plurality and performativity of identity, and embrace of knowledge as situated yet fluid, the MOP offers lessons for approaching views towards animal research and the role of publics in dialogue around the practice. In considering the MOP, we underline the need to acknowledge the role of method in shaping both what publics are able to articulate, and which positions they are able to articulate from. Finally, we stress the need for future dialogue around animal research to involve publics beyond one-way measurements of 'public opinion' and instead work to foster a reciprocity which enables them to act as collaborators in and coproducers of animal research policy, practice, and dialogue.